Bombay High Court
Sanjay Bajirao More And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 19 October, 2015
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
ssm 1 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5831 OF 2015
1 Sanjay Bajirao More,
Aged 42 years, residing at
Gharkul Society, Plot No. 136/D-I,
MHADA Colony, Pokhran Road-2,
Thane (W), District. Thane.
2 Sharad Gulab More,
Aged 42 years, C/o. Ashok Suryavanshi,
Sainath Nagar, (Sai Dhan Kuti),
Near Ration Kirana Shop,
Behind Kajuwadi, Thane (West). ...Petitioners
Vs.
1 State of Maharashtra through
Its Principal Secretary
Tribal Development Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai: 400 032.
1/26
::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2015 23:59:15 :::
ssm 2 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
2 Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar
Division, through its Member-Secretary
District Nandurbar.
3 Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Ltd.
Through its Chief Engineer, Bhandup
Nagari Parimandal, 1st floor
Bhandup (West), L.B. S. Marg
Mumbai: 400 078.
4 Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai through its Deputy Chief Security
Officer, Lakhamshi Nappu Marg,
Hindu Colony, Dadar (E),
Mumbai 400 014. ...Respondents.
Mr. R.K. Mendadkar with Ms. Helen Koli and Mr. C.K. Bhangoji for the
Petitioners.
Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. S.S. Jinsiwale for Respondent No.3.
Ms. Surekha Sonawane i/by U.H. Deshpande for Respondent No.4.
2/26
::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2015 23:59:15 :::
ssm 3 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
CORAM:- ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
A.A.SAYED, JJ.
RESERVED ON:- 28 SEPTEMBER 2015.
PRONOUNCED ON:- 19 OCTOBER 2015.
JUDGMENT (PER ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) :-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard finally, by consent of the parties.
2 Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have challenged common order
dated 28 May 2015 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee-Respondent No.2, invalidating the caste certificates of the
Petitioners as belonging to "Thakur-Scheduled Tribe", issued by the
Competent Authority.
3 The case of the Petitioners is as follows:-
i) On 5 January 1924, father of Petitioner No. 1 and real
uncle of Petitioner No. 2 admitted in the primary school and on 9
December 1925, father of Petitioner No.2 and real uncle of Petitioner
No.1 admitted in the primary school, where their social status was
ssm 4 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
described as "Thakur".
ii) On 6 September 1950, by exercise of powers conferred by
clause (1) of Article 342 of the Constitution of India, the President
was pleased to initially issue the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)
Order, 1950. As far as the then State of Bombay was concerned, the
relevant portion is to be found in Part III of the Schedule to the 1950
Order. Entry 21 deals with "Thakur'. Clause 2 of the said Order says
that the tribes or tribal communities, or parts of, or groups within
tribes or tribal communities specified in Parts I to XIV of the Schedule
to the Order shall, in relation to the States to which those parts
respectively relate, be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes so far as regards
members thereof resident in the localities specified in relation to them
respectively in those parts of that Schedule. Thus, so far as the
erstwhile Bombay State was concerned, "Thakur" was declared to be
Scheduled Tribes.
iii) On 25 September 1956, the Parliament enacted the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act,
1956 amending the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950
ssm 5 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
referred to above and the Thakar community was included as
Scheduled Tribe for the first time, along with Thakur including Ka-
Thakur, Ma-Thakur, Ka-Thakar and Ma-Thakar only in respect of some
Talukas of five Districts of the then Old Bombay State. The above
position continued even after Bombay Re-organisation Act, 1960.
iv) On 27 July 1977, the Parliament enacted Act No. 108 of
1976 on 18th September, 1976 viz. The Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act of 1976). The
Scheduled Tribes Orders were amended in the manner and to the
extent specified in the Second Schedule to Act No. 108 of 1976. In
the Second Schedule, Part IX deals with Maharashtra State. Entry 44
in the said Part IX reads as under:-
"44. Thakur, Thakar, Ka Thakur, Ka Thakar, Ma
Thakur, Ma Thakar"
v) On 14 June 1976, Petitioner No. 1 was admitted in the
primary school, where his social status was described as "Thakur". On
1 July 1978, Petitioner No. 2 was admitted in the primary school,
where his social status was also described as "Thakur". On 7 July
1983, the then Competent Authority issued caste certificate to
ssm 6 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
Petitioner No.1 certifying that Petitioner No.1 belongs to Thakur tribe,
which is notified as scheduled tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled
Tribes) Order, 1950 as amended from time to time. In the month of
July 1993, the tribe claim of the blood brother of Petitioner No. 1 and
first cousin of the Petitioners was allowed by the Commissioner, Tribal
Development in Appeal filed against the decision of the Scrutiny
Committee and thus, held that the caste certificate issued to Shri Vijay
Bajirao More is valid.
vi) On 6 October 1994, Petitioner No. 1 joined the services of
Respondent No. 3-Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company
Limited (for short, "MSEDCL") on the post of Operator under reserved
category of scheduled tribe.
vii) On 15 November 2000, the statutory caste scrutiny
committee at Nashik validated the scheduled tribe-Thakur claim of
Shri Rajendra Bajirao More, the real brother of Petitioner No. 1 and
first cousin of Petitioner No. 2. On 16 August 2001, the Competent
Authority, under the Act issued caste certificate to Petitioner No. 2
certifying that he belongs to Thakur tribe, which is notified as
ssm 7 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
scheduled tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950
as amended from time to time. In the month of November 2003,
Petitioner No. 2 joined the services of Respondent No. 4 on the post of
Security Guard under reserved category of scheduled tribe. However,
for want of caste validity certificate, Respondent No. 4-Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai, has been giving him technical break
of one day. On 23 February 2004, Respondent No. 3 referred the
application in the prescribed form "E" of Petitioner No. 1 for
verification, alongwith all necessary and germane documents. In the
year 2004, the tribe claim of Petitioner No. 2 was forwarded by
Respondent No. 3 to Respondent No. 2-Committee for verification,
alongwith various documents as detailed in the impugned order.
viii) On 17 September 2004, the Vigilance Cell recorded the
statement of Petitioner No. 2 on the socio-cultural affinity test. The
information is consistent with the tribe claimed by the Petitioner. On
22 November 2004, the Vigilance Cell submitted its report after
ascertaining the ground reality in relation to documentary evidence,
as well as, oral evidence in relation to affinity test in relation to
Petitioner No. 2. The report also refers to the crucial fact that tribe
ssm 8 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
claims of the blood relatives from paternal side have been validated by
the different caste Scrutiny Committees. On 7 March 2005, the
Vigilance Cell recorded the statement of Petitioner No. 1 on the socio-
cultural affinity test. The said information is consistent with the tribe
claimed by Petitioner No. 1. However, in the report, there is no
whisper about the caste of real sister of Petitioner No. 1 and cousin
sister of Petitioner No. 2 as Thakur, Bigar Magas. On 30 April 2005,
the tribe claim of Sanket Vijay More, the nephew of Petitioner No. 1
and cousin nephew of Petitioner No. 2 was accepted as valid by the
statutory Scrutiny Committee, at Nashik. On 18 May 2005, the tribe
claim of Dipak R. More, the nephew of Petitioner No. 1 and cousin
nephew of Petitioner No. 2 was accepted as valid by the statutory
Scrutiny Committee at Nashik. On 31 May 2005, the Vigilance Cell
submitted its report after ascertaining the ground reality in relation to
documentary evidence, as well as, oral evidence in relation to affinity
test in relation to Petitioner No. 1. The report also refers to the
crucial fact that tribe claims of the blood relatives from paternal side
have been validated by the different caste Scrutiny Committees. On
15 June 2005, the tribe claim of Jagdish R. More, the nephew of
Petitioner No. 1 and cousin nephew of Petitioner No. 2 was accepted
ssm 9 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
as valid by the statutory scrutiny committee at Nashik. On 11
October 2005, Petitioner No. 1 was heard by the Scrutiny Committee
at Nashik, when he has given information in relation to affinity with
Thakur, scheduled tribe. Petitioner No. 1 also filed his reply and
pointed out merits of his case. On 19 June 2006, the caste Scrutiny
Committee at Nashik invalidated the tribe claim of Petitioner No. 1.
ix) On 4 September 2006, the Writ Petition No. 5031 of 2006
filed by Petitioner No. 1, was admitted by this Court and ad-interim
relief was also granted in terms of prayer clause (e). On 2 September
2006, the Vigilance Cell submitted its report to the Scrutiny
Committee at Nashik on the point of exact relationship with the
Petitioners with Dharmendra R. More, whose tribe claim was upheld
by this High Court in relation to Petitioner No. 1 and thus, confirmed
exact relationship. On 15 September 2006, the Petitioners through
their advocate appeared before Respondent No. 2-Committee and
pointed out merits of the case. The Petitioner filed written notes of
arguments and cited the following authorities:-
a) Saurabh Dalal vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. (Writ Petition
No.8922/2003 decided on 12.07.2006)
ssm 10 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
b) Balwant Jalgaonkar vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. (Writ
Petition No.1372/1989 decided on 24/25 June 2004)
c) Varsha Dhanawat vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 1
x) On 6 October 2006, this Court allowed Writ Petition No.
5032 of 2006 filed by the real nephew of Petitioner No. 1 and cousin
nephew of Petitioner No. 2 and directed the Scrutiny Committee to
issue caste validity certificate to Dharmendra within a period of two
weeks from that date. The Scrutiny Committee was also directed to
pay costs of Rs. 1000/- to Dharmendra. On 18 October 2006, the
Scrutiny Committee at Nashik invalidated the tribe claim of Petitioner
No. 2 as belonging to Thakur, scheduled tribe. In the month of
October 2006, the Scrutiny Committee at Nashik issued caste validity
certificate to Dharmendra Ramakant More, the real nephew of
Petitioner No. 1 and cousin nephew of Petitioner No. 2. On 6
February 2007, this Court pleased to issue Rule on Writ Petition No.
7409 of 2006 and continued interim relief till final disposal of the Writ
Petition in relation to Petitioner No. 2. In the year 2007, the Apex
Court dismissed SLP No. CC 2600 of 2007 filed by Respondent No. 1-
1 2006 (4) MLJ 676
ssm 11 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
State, against the judgement of this High Court in the case of
Dharmendra, the blood relative of the Petitioners.
xi) On 14 October 2010, the Division Bench of this Court
allowed Writ Petition No. 7162 of 2010 filed by the real brother of
Petitioner No. 1 and cousin brother of Petitioner No. 2 and imposed
cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the Scrutiny Committee at Nashik. By the
judgement, the Scrutiny Committee was directed to issue caste validity
certificate to Ramakant More. On 2 February 2011, the Scrutiny
Committee at Nashik issued caste validity certificate to Ramakant, the
blood brother of Petitioner No. 1 and first cousin of Petitioner No. 2.
On 23 August 2011, the Apex Court allowed Civil Appeal filed by
Kum. Amruta Vijay More and directed that the Petitioner's certificate
should be re-validated forthwith. On 18 October 2011, the Scrutiny
Committee at Nashik issued caste validity certificate to Amruta, the
real niece of Petitioner No. 1 and cousin niece of Petitioner No. 2. On
14 September 2012, the Scrutiny Committee at Nashik issued caste
validity certificate to Vandana Ramakant More, the real niece of
Petitioner No. 1 and cousin niece of Petitioner No. 2. On 30
November 2012, the real brother of Petitioner No. 1 and first cousin of
ssm 12 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
Petitioner No. 2 filed affidavit and given complete genealogy tree of
the family. On the same day, even Amruta More, whose tribe claim
was adjudicated upon and determined by the Apex Court, filed an
affidavit and furnished genealogy tree showing in unequivocal terms
as to how, the Petitioners are her blood relatives from paternal side.
xii) On 11 March 2014, this Court allowed Writ Petition Nos.
5031 of 2006 (Sanjay Bajirao More v. State of Maharashtra and ors.)
and 7409 of 2006 (Sharad Gulab More v. State of Maharashtra and
ors.) and remanded the matter to Respondent No. 2 committee to re-
consider every aspects of the matter in the light of judgement of this
Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 7343 of 2013, decided on 26
February 2014. This Court also observed that the Petitioners are
uncles of said Amruta Vijay More, whose SLP was allowed by the
Supreme Court. On 26 March 2014, the Petitioners appeared before
Respondent No. 2-Committee. On 18 July 2014, the Scrutiny
Committee at Nashik forwarded the cases of the Petitioners to
Respondent No. 2-Committee in view of change of territorial
jurisdiction. On 10 June 2014, the Petitioners requested Respondent
No. 2-Committee to consider the effect of grant of 9 caste validity
ssm 13 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
certificates to the blood relatives of the Petitioner from paternal side.
On 28 October 2014, the Petitioners appeared before Respondent No.
2-Committee when, they were examined on the point of affinity test,
for which, necessary information was furnished. However,
Respondent No. 2-Committee kept the Petitioners in dark and did not
inform about the so called school record of the real sister of Petitioner
No. 1 and cousin sister of Petitioner No. 2 showing her alleged caste as
Hindu Thakur-Bigas Magas. On 6 February 2015, the Apex Court
dismissed SLP No. 25000 of 2014 filed by Respondent No. 1-State
against the Judgement of this Court in the case of Madhuri Nitin
Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2. On 12 April 2015, since
there was deliberate and intentional disobedience of the judgement
and order passed by this Court in the case of the Petitioners, the
advocate for the Petitioners sent a detailed notice pointing out legal
position in relation to the grant of caste validity certificates to the
Petitioners and also cited judgement of this Court in the case of
Madhuri Jadhav, Apex Court judgement in the case of Kum. Amruta
Vijay More, judgement of this Court Dharmendra Ramakant More,
Ramakant Bajirao More and order passed by the Apex Court
2 2014 (3) Mh.L.J. 900 : 2014 (4) Bom.C.R. 753
ssm 14 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
dismissing SLPs filed by Respondent No. 1-State against Shri.
Dharmendra, the real nephew of Petitioner No. 1 and cousin nephew
of Petitioner No. 2, as well as, SLP filed by Respondent No. 1 against
Shri Ramakant, the blood brother of Petitioner No. 1 and cousin
brother of Petitioner No. 2. On behalf the Petitioners, reliance was
also placed on the most recent judgement of this Court in the case of
Pramodkumar Narendrakumar Wagh & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra &
Anr. 3 (Anoop V. Mohta & K. R. Shriram, JJ.) . In the month of May
2015, immediately after receipt of the legal notice, Respondent No. 2-
Committee got up from the slumber and without appreciating very
crucial fact that its two members have already passed an order
validating the tribe claims of the Petitioners, passed the impugned
order. In June 2015, the Petitioners received the impugned order on 3
June 2015. Immediately, they approached Respondent No. 2 and
applied for Records and Proceedings of their cases under RTI Act,
which was made available to them on 23 June 2015 after charging
prescribed fees. On 29 June 2015, the present Writ Petition is filed.
4 To summarize, the following is the genealogy/genealogical
3 2015(4) ALL MR 502=2015(4) Mh.L.J. 949
ssm 15 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
tree of the Petitioners:-
GENEALOGICAL TREE OF THE PETITIONERS
Kalyansing More
|
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Bajirao Gulabsing
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| |
| | | | | |
Ramakant Ratna Vijay Rajendra Sanjay Sharad
(WP 7162/10) (Validity (Validity (Petitioner No.1.) (Petitioner No.2)
(Validity 12/7/93) 15/11/00)
2/2/11) |-------------------------------------------------------|
| |
-----------|------------------------------------------------------------| |
| | | | |------------------|
Jagdish Dipak Dharmendra Vandana Sanket, Amruta
(Validity
15/6/05)
(Validity
ig (WP 5032/10) (Validity
18/5/05) (Validity
Oct.06)
24/12/12)
(SLP (c) 29364/10)
(Validity
18/10/11)
5 This Court in Pramodkumar Narendrakumar Wagh (supra)
while dealing with the related caste issues, specifically Thakar,
referring to earlier Supreme Court, as well as, the High Court
Judgments, including Judgment/order passed in the matter of Amruta
Vijay More, who is the niece of Petitioner No.1 and cousin of
Petitioner No.2, has recorded as under:-
"4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amruta Vijay More Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.7230 of 2011
arising out of SLP (c) No.29364 of 2010 observed as under :-
"...... In the instant case, Caste Screening Committee had
clearly found father, paternal uncle, brother and paternal
cousins of the appellant to belong to Thakur, Scheduled
Tribe. Subsequent decision of the screening committee
solely on the basis of affinity test, in our view, does not
ssm 16 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
stand to scrutiny......."
5 The Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Anoop V. Mohta
& M.S.Sonak,JJ) in Writ Petition No.8987 of 2010 filed by one
Priti Komalsingh Thakur observed as under :-
"......It is difficult to accept the situation in the society
that the caste of the father, two brothers and or other
relations are different than as of the son/petitioner,
though there may be some material as observed by the
scrutiny committee."
6 The Division Bench of this court (Coram : Anoop V.Mohta
& F.M.Reis,JJ) in the case of Pranav Prakash Mandlik Vs. State
of Maharashtra and ors. reported in 2014 (6) Mh.L.J.449, after
considering the catena of decisions cited therein, allowed the
said Writ Petition and directed the scrutiny committee to issue
validity certificate within a period of 2 weeks from the date of
receipt of the said order.
7 The Division Bench of this Court, Bench at Nagpur
(Coram : B.R.Gavai and Smt.Mridula Bhatkar,JJ) after
considering the landmark decision in the case of Apoorva
Nichale, allowed the Writ Petition No.326 of 2015 on
30.1.2015 filed by the petitioner therein, and passed strictures
on the functioning of the scrutiny committee constituted by the
State of Maharashtra which is evident from page no.8, para-11.
The concerned respondents were also saddled with cost which is
evident on page-9, para-13 of the said judgment."
and thereby granted prayer clauses to the effect, directing
Respondent-Authority to issue certificate as early as possible
preferably within eight weeks.
ssm 17 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
6 The judgment Pramodkumar Narendrakumar Wagh
(supra) was challenged by the State in the Apex Court vide Special
Leave Petition No. 26523 of 2015. After hearing both the parties, by
order dated 21 September 2015, the Special Leave Petition was
dismissed. The issues, as well as, the observations so made therein
against the similarly situated caste contest and the mechanical orders
passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and specifically para 8, as
reproduced below, apart from giving importance to the relatives'
certificate while dealing with the matter, have attained finality.
7 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners pointed
out, by placing on record the Special Leave Petition filed by the State
Government, whereby the following grounds were raised in the above
Special Leave Petition by the State Government mainly; "(i) In many
decisions, this Hon'ble Court as well as the High Court have dismissed
the caste claims of the persons whose near relatives had received validity
certificate. Though the said aspect was raised before the High Court, the
High Court did not consider the same, (ii) Because, the High Court did
not consider the concept of area restriction. It will be necessary to
understand the concept of area restriction. As per the said
concept the Thakur Schedule Tribe are considered as Scheduled Tribe
ssm 18 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
belonging originally from 25 Talukas of five districts, namely;
Ahmednagar, Nashik, Pune, Thane and Colaba. Admittedly, the
respondents are the permanent residents of Dhule district which do not
form part of the 25 Talukas. It was submitted that therefore, the
Respondents do not belong to Thakur Schedule Tribe. So also it is
necessary to point here out that the area restriction was imposed in the
year 1956 and the same was removed in the year 1976. Intention
behind removal of the area restriction was that if a tribal migrates from
the restricted area, he should not be deprived of from the benefits of the
Scheduled Tribe. Admittedly, the respondents are permanent residents of
Dhule district and they have not migrated from the above mentioned
restricted area; (iii) Because, the High Court did not consider the
documentary evidence as well as the vigilance cell report properly. It
needs to be considered that the respondents do not match the affinity test
with the Thakur Scheduled Tribe. It needs to be seen that the research
officer, after conducting the enquiry, found that the respondents do not
belong to Thakur Schedule Tribe; (iv) In support of their caste claim, the
respondents relied upon school leaving certificates of their grandfather
Tulshiram Ghanshyam Thakur and cousin grandfather Shankar
Ghanshyam Thakur. The entry of caste shows the caste as Thakur and
ssm 19 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
not the Thakur Schedule Tribe. The school leaving certificate of Shankar
Ghanshyam Thakur shows date of admission in the school as 4.6.1929
and the school leaving date as 2.4.1937. The school leaving certificate of
Tulshiram shows date of admission as 10.6.1930 and the school leaving
date as 5.10.1942. So also the respondents relied upon the school
leaving certificate of their father Nana @ Narendrakumar Wagh. The
school leaving certificate of Nana @ Narendrakumar Wagh mentions the
caste as Hindu Thakur. The date of admission was 2.6.1959 and the
date of school leaving was 30.5.1966. The High Court should have seen
that not a single document mentions the caste as Thakur Scheduled
Tribe; (v) Because, the High Court should have considered an important
aspect which has wide ramifications. If this judgment is not interfered
with, many persons who do not belong to Thakur Scheduled Tribe may
take disadvantage of the impugned judgment and they may get validity
certificates by improper way as if they belong to Thakur Scheduled
Tribe.".
We have quoted the grounds raised above to understand the
submissions and the issues raised by the learned AGP for the State
Government and their officers, including respective Caste Scrutiny
Committee. Inspite of the specific submission about the "area
ssm 20 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
restriction" and other grounds so raised, as quoted above, the SLP was
dismissed.
8 The importance of the caste claim and/or
certificate/validity certificate just cannot be overlooked by any person
as it affects not only to the Petitioners, but also future generations to
come. The Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-
Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward
Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of issuance and
verification of ) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (for short, "the Caste
Certificate Act") and Rules made thereunder have given importance to
the Caste Certificate/Caste Validity Certificate of the paternal side
family members. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, therefore, based
upon then existing provisions and the material available, has granted
such Caste Certificate/Validity Certificate to one of the paternal side
family member. Unless the said Certificate is set aside and/or declared
null and void by the Competent Court/Authority, based upon mere
allegations, the Caste Scrutiny Committee is under legal obligation not
to disrespect such Caste Scrutiny Committee Validity Certificate and
on the contrary, bound to grant the Caste Validity Certificate, in
accordance with law to such claimant. The caste claim of the person,
ssm 21 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
unless case is made out of fraud and misrepresentation, the Scrutiny
Committee cannot re-open and/or disregard the Caste Validity
Certificate already issued to the paternal relatives. There is no such
case of fraud or misrepresentation. On the contrary, there are
consistent orders passed in favour of Petitioners' paternal relatives and
even confirmed by the Supreme Court and the High Court.
9 There cannot be any issue that if the case is made out
including of fraud and/or misrepresentation, the State and/or its
Officers at the time of passing order, and/or re-appraising and/or re-
assessing the evidence and material placed on record, needs to give
full opportunity to all the concerned.
10 We have already declared the same, time and again and in
the matter of Madhuri Nitin Jadhav (supra) (Anoop V. Mohta & A.A.
Sayed, JJ.), the Judgment, which is also not interfered in the Special
Leave Petition filed by the aggrieved party. It is necessary to mention
that in that Judgment also we have dealt with in detail, the
importance of relatives' certificate and the issue of "restricted area".
The State Government, inspite of this Judgment, which is not
ssm 22 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
interfered with by the Supreme Court as recorded above, re-agitated
the same issues and the grounds which are ultimately resulted into the
rejection, as the Special Leave Petition as recorded above, was also
dismissed.
11 We have already noted the following points for
consideration in such situation and observed in Devram Laxman Bhoir
Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 4 (Anoop V. Mohta & M. S. Sonak,
JJ.) as under:-
"14 The Scrutiny Committee/Authority therefore,
required to take note of various doctrines including of
"the precedent" "obiter-dicta", "ratio decidendi",
"estoppel", "acquiescence", "waiver" and "res-judicata",
apart from natural justice, fair play and equity. All
those principles are necessary to follow, as in most of the
caste scrutiny matters, various Supreme Court Judgments
and the Judgments of the High Court are read and
referred, for and against the issues so raised. Therefore,
considering their scope and limitation, being quasi-
judicial Authority but, at the same stroke, as it decides
the caste claim and the important rights of the parties,
the Authority/Caste Scrutiny Committee, just cannot
overlook those doctrines, before passing any reasoned
order/ judgment.
15 In case of fraud and/or misrepresentation
more detailed inquiry and scrutiny is necessary. Mere
averments of fraud and/or misrepresentation itself are
not sufficient. One who alleges fraud and/or
4 2014 (4) Mh. L. J. 626
ssm 23 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
misrepresentation, including the complainant, required
to placed on record the supporting materials to justify
their defence/objection. In case, the fraud or
misrepresentation is detected and/or proved, section 10
contemplates specific provisions which required to be
followed by the concerned. They are under obligation
and duties to pass reasoned order within the
framework of law and record and the judgments so
declared from time to time, apart from above basic
principles. They are also under obligation to finalize the
inquiry/report, as early as possible to conclude the caste
claim to avoid further complications and/or delay in the
matter."
It is necessary to make the following observations
before the final order:-
(a) Unless a case of fraud or misrepresentation is made out, the
Scrutiny Committee should not overlook the caste validity
certificates issued to the paternal relatives and reject the caste
claim of the similarly placed relatives/claimants.
(b) Mere allegations of fraud and misrepresentation is not
sufficient to reject the caste claim, unless it is proved after due
inquiry and trial by the Competent Court/Authority in
accordance with law.
(c) The decided caste claim of the relatives should be given effect
and/or importance, for an adjudication of caste validity of the
ssm 24 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
other relatives before granting or rejecting the similar caste
claim.
(d) Unless exceptional case is made out, the Scrutiny Committee or
other Authority, needs to pass final order based upon the
paternal relative's caste validity certificates without delay.
(e) The inquiry needs to be made of the issue about "restricted
area", as elaborated and discussed in the Judgments of
Madhuri Nitin Jadhav (Supra) and Pramodkumar N. Wagh
(supra) only in case where, there is no proved material to
support; like paternal and/or relatives caste certificates.
(f) The case that claimant is not entitled for the certificate in view
of "area restriction", may be re-considered inspite of relatives
certificates, if a case of fraud and misrepresentation is made
out and not on mere allegations. However, it is also subject to
grant of opportunity to all the concerned.
13 We have already observed in Pramodkumar N. Wagh
(supra) and re-observe as follows in this matter also:-
"8 The respondents filed a reply and resisted the
petitioners' claim in every aspect by referring to other
judgments and by overlooking the judgments so cited above
mainly on the ground that the scrutiny committee has power
ssm 25 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
and the authority and as need to appreciate each and every
case on its own merits. There cannot be issue on this point.
But in a situation where relatives' caste validity certificate
having been granted on the basis of orders passed by this
court and the Supreme Court, the scope and authority of
Scrutiny Committee in such matters is very limited. Law
nowhere permits them to reopen and re-appreciate the
material by overlooking the conclusions so drawn in favour of
relatives. This is not the case where any allegations and/or
material and/or even observation made at any point of time
that the petitioners' relatives have committed any fraud
and/or mis-representations while getting those validity
certificate that they belong to Thakur community. There is
nothing on record to show that even the respondents have
challenged those validity certificates on this ground.
Therefore, we are inclined to observe that the Scrutiny
Committee by passing such orders by overlooking the orders
passed by this Court as well as Supreme Court, definitely dis-
respecting the conclusions so drawn by the court. Such
attitude, in our view, is deprecated. This is not the case where
even the relations are in dispute. The State Government, in
our view, required to take steps against such Scrutiny
Committee and/or officers who are passing such orders by
overlooking the judgments passed by the Supreme Court and
this courts directly on the issues after taking into
consideration the relatives' caste validity certificates.
Appropriate circular and/or direction is required to be issued
in this regard so that it will save time and energy of every one
including of Courts."
(Emphasis added)
13-A) We have observed reiterated and compiled above position
of law based upon earlier Supreme Court and High Court Judgments,
so that Caste Scrutiny Committee will take note of above principles
before rejecting and/or allowing any caste case/claim. This is also to
ssm 26 Judgment-wp5831.15.sxw
avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, apart from taking effective
decision on the issues.
14 Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, we pass the
following order:-
ORDER
(a) The Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a)
and (b).
(b) Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs.
(c ) It is made clear that the Respondent-Authority to
issue caste validity certificate, as early as possible,
preferably within eight weeks.
(A.A.SAYED, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
